Cathy McLeod

[Relations with Indigenous Peoples, February 18th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I outlined in my speech all the indicators with respect to the elected band councils, the referendum processes, the statements by so many of the members and the survey that indicated 85% support for the project. From what we have heard, and we are not in the community, this project has broad community support.

Certainly things have happened in the House. I do not agree with every piece of legislation that is passed, but I have to respect the will of the House. In terms of elections, we have to respect the will of the people.

Our side is saying that we respect the decision that was made by the communities, by the people.

[Relations with Indigenous Peoples, February 18th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

I want to acknowledge that the Speaker allowed this emergency debate tonight. It is an issue of critical importance across the country. To be frank, it did not have to be this way. The signs have been there for many months, that we have a challenge in British Columbia, with regard to the Coastal GasLink pipeline. The government ignored it. It is responsible for the crisis that we see today, because the Liberals did not proactively deal with this issue.

What is happening across the country? I think all of us in the House appreciate that demonstrations are a part of our rights as citizens of this country. Although there are times when there are blockages of traffic or whatever, we tolerate it because it is important. There is a line that gets crossed and that is of course when we have blockades of critical infrastructure, which are clearly illegal.

What are the impacts? No one has talked much about the impact of these actions from coast to coast to coast. What is happening because of these illegal blockades? I am not talking about peaceful demonstrations to which every Canadian has a right. I am talking about a blockade of our rail lines and other actions.

There is quickly becoming a shortage of groceries and baby formula in some stores, as the products cannot move across the country. Many homes rely on propane for heat, and propane travels by rail. The lack of propane is not only impacting people's homes, but it is also impacting senior care facilities and farmers.

We have a forestry crisis in British Columbia. The industry is on its knees. Now product is not getting from the forests to the mills and on to the customers. An already hurting industry is being doubly stabbed.

Right now there are 66 large shipping vessels sitting, stalled in the waters of British Columbia. That is at a cost of $425 million a day, which is not insignificant. Water systems will not have the chlorine they need.

Just today, the Premier of British Columbia's house was blockaded to prevent him from getting to the legislature. Journalists had to scale the walls to get into the B.C. legislature so they could report on the speech from the throne.

Clearly, as the transport minister acknowledged today, we have dangerous acts involving destruction of our rail lines. I understand that signal lights have been vandalized and there has been significant damage to vehicles and bridges. This is not an insignificant issue.

When I listened to the Prime Minister earlier today, I heard a very peripheral acknowledgement of what was happening out there. It is so serious, and it is something I have never seen in all my time.

Thirty Canadian organizations, from the Chamber of Commerce to the aluminum and mining industries released a joint statement. It stated:

...these illegal blockades inflict serious damage on the economy, leaving countless middle-class jobs at risk, many of them in industries that must get their goods, parts, and ingredients to and from market by rail. In addition to disrupting domestic and global supply chains, the blockades undermine Canada’s reputation as a dependable partner in international trade. They also threaten public safety by preventing the distribution of essential products like chlorine for water treatment and propane for heating homes...

I will share my understanding of this project.

There was a very lengthy process for approval. It is an approximately 670-kilometre pipeline that delivers gas from the Dawson Creek area to a facility near Kitimat, B.C. for export. It is seen as something that has an opportunity not only for economic benefit for Canada, but for supporting a decrease in global emissions.

We know 20 elected chiefs have supported the project. I understand a number of hereditary chiefs have also supported it. This process included a number of communities, and the elected councils took the project to referendum for approval. This is not just the elected chiefs saying, yes. In many communities, there was a referendum process.

Clearly, a group of hereditary chiefs are opposed. However, another significant point is that some of those chiefs actually ran for elected council and did not win their seats.

There was a rally in Prince George, and I listened to Wet'suwet'en speaker after speaker talk about the importance of this project to their community, from Crystal Smith to elder Elsie Tiljoe.

It was estimated, through an internal process, by hereditary chief Theresa Tait-Day that 85% of the Wet’suwet’en people in her community supported this project.

Again, clearly there has been trouble brewing for months, but the government has allowed it to grow into a full-blown crisis.

We now have groups like Extinction Rebellion, Climate Justice, among others, who play the key role in the protest. They have been described by many, including some of the Wet’suwet’en people, as outsiders exploiting a division within the first nations community in the hope of creating chaos. For many, I think this is a dress rehearsal for the Trans Mountain pipeline and any future energy project. Their goal is not to deal with the challenging governance issues of first nations communities, but it is to shut down energy infrastructure across the country.

Current MLA Ellis Ross, formerly a band council member who participated in the benefit agreement negotiation, said, “Originally it was indian act that oppressed us and we beat it. Now the NGOs and even Native organizations oppress us. In the middle of all this posturing and politics, average aboriginals remain in place with their social issues.”

Wet'suwet'en nation member Vernon Mitchel said, regarding some of the opposition, “They don’t even know squat about our territory and meanwhile they’re putting on roadblocks...they’re hurting my people and my kids.”

To date, the government response has been to ignore and deflect, saying it is British Columbia's problem. Today, the speech by the Prime Minister was particularly disappointing. It was words, but it did not relay an action plan. Today Premier Moe called for a conference call with all the premiers, because he saw a lack of action and a lack of leadership.

In spite of the talk by the Prime Minister with respect to hearing different viewpoints, that different viewpoints are important, clearly there is only one viewpoint that matters, and that is his own perspective. He leaves many important people out of the conversation.

We have a crisis. We have a lack of leadership. The current government has allowed something to fester. It has not paid attention to it and it has grown into a crisis in the country. It lies at the feet of the government.

[Relations with Indigenous Peoples, February 18th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I would like to suggest that the government has been asleep at the switch for the last number of months. This is a crisis that has been brewing. The Prime Minister was saying that it is up to the provincial government to deal with it, that it is up to whoever to deal with it. He went off to Africa. I am certainly not aware of any action taken by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations until it reached a crisis point.

Is it their perspective that it is the government's job to finally wake up when there is a crisis or should they be looking for the red flags that have been there for ever and ever and they completely ignored?

[Relations with Indigenous Peoples, February 18th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, there is a challenge in the debate we are having tonight. When my colleagues and I stand, we believe we are standing up for the Wet'suwet'en people and the decision that was made by their elected council and a number of the hereditary chiefs. I was at a resource forum in Prince George and I heard speaker after speaker talk about the opportunities they saw, including elders who said they were originally against this project but are now for it. What is happening is dividing their community.

How can my colleague stand up for what I understand to be a minority view when the community has spoken for this project?

[Forestry Industry, February 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said one of his most important roles was to protect jobs. Did he mean only certain jobs were worthy of his protection?

He has failed to acknowledge the softwood lumber crisis in British Columbia. He did not put it in the mandate letter for the minister. The so-called softwood lumber action plan expired a while ago, and a lot of the money got doled out to provinces that were not even suffering from softwood tariffs.

Would the minister stand up today and commit to helping rural Canadians impacted by this forestry crisis?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, certainly we share the concerns around softwood lumber, but the NDP historically has been very reluctant to support any trade agreement, and so I am not sure we have common ground there in terms of the best way to move forward. However, had the government reached out in terms of some priorities, I think it absolutely could have had a better deal.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to talk a bit about the aluminum industry. In Canada, we need to be extremely proud of the amazing work that our aluminum industry is doing in heading towards a low-carbon product. For aluminum not to have the same protection as steel in the agreement is quite shameful and shows a lack of appropriate negotiating by the Liberal government.

That said, the member asked why we would support the agreement. As I said at the start of my remarks, usually I can stand up very proudly with my vote, but today I will stand up reluctantly, because I think the harm to Canada if this very imperfect deal does not go ahead would be more than the harm that is currently there.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I think that our record for ensuring that the appropriate documents were tabled and that the opposition was informed and had briefings is miles and miles ahead of what happened in this case.

This is a trade agreement with our most important neighbours, and I will contrast what happened in the U.S. We have a minority Parliament now. In the U.S., the Democrats and Republicans worked together to have a deal that would work for the United States, but the Liberals, in their arrogance, decided that they knew best. We could have helped them with some of the issues that I have identified and we could have made a better agreement for our country.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on Bill C-4, on which we will be voting. Typically, when I stand in Parliament to vote, I am always very comfortable with my vote. Whether it is yes or no, I am proud to stand in my place and vote.

Today we will be voting on this agreement, and it will be with a heavy heart and reluctance that I will stand to support it, knowing not only that there are a lot of problems with it, but if I do not support it, things will take a dramatic and drastic turn. We need to have a free trade agreement with our most important trading partner. It will not be an easy vote when I know it could have and should have been so much better.

I will talk about process, priorities and gaps.

On the process, Canada was left on the sidelines for some of the most important parts of the negotiations. Mexico and the U.S. put a lot of the final details to the agreement and told Canada that it could like it or lump it. What kind of negotiators do we have when they leave us on the sidelines for some of the most critical components of a deal?

The other piece I have trouble with is the lack of engagement. If we look at what happened in the U.S., the Republicans and Democrats worked very closely, made changes and came up with an agreement with which everyone was comfortable. That collaborative process, working together on important priorities, helped make a better agreement in the long run.

In our case, was there engagement with the other parties in the House? Yes, there was a committee, but that committee did not talk to the elected representatives, the elected representatives being the official opposition, the Bloc and the NDP. The negotiators did not benefit from the wisdom of the other parties in the House, which has left us with a lump-it-or-like-it agreement.

Last week, the minister suggested that the opposition parties not hold up the agreement. The Conservatives had suggested the House resume early. The election was in October and the Liberals did not recall the House until early December. We said that we needed to come back to talk about and engage on this agreement. Then we suggested the House resume in early January to debate the agreement, that it was one of the most important trade agreements we would sign and that we needed to give it due diligence and talk about it. Did the government bring us back early? No. Then the Liberals said that they did not want the opposition parties to delay it, yet we had not even seen the legislation. It is a failed and flawed process. They should be very ashamed with how they went about it.

The Liberals took a number of priorities into the negotiations, but what did they omit? They omitted probably the biggest trade irritant between Canada and the U.S. in the last number of decades, softwood lumber. Was softwood lumber made one of their priorities for negotiation? No. The government headed into negotiations on an updated agreement, and the most important trade irritant we had for decades was not a priority.

In 2017, the government said it would get a new softwood agreement. The Prime Minister and President Obama said that they would get it done. Here we are in 2020, and the agreement is not done.

What has been happening with the softwood lumber industry? In my province alone, over 24 mills have closed and 10,000-plus employees have been impacted. The government's lack of doing its job in getting a softwood lumber agreement is hurting Canadians across the country.

I would like to suggest that British Columbia might be the canary in the coal mine on this particular issue, because mills in New Brunswick are suggesting that they are having problems. Quebec has been concerned about it. When 20% is put on as an arbitrary number at the border and we do not have an agreement, our industry is hurting.

Was it a priority for negotiations? No, forestry was neglected. Was it in the Speech from the Throne? It was neglected. Was it in the minister's mandate letter? It was neglected.

I would suggest that the government has failed to do its job. The Prime Minister said one of the most important things he needed to do was protect jobs in this country, but he has been absolutely indifferent to the crisis in forestry across this country. It took the last Conservative government to get the deal done, and it obviously looks as though we need to get back in, because it will take a Conservative government to get it done in the future.

Let me speak to failures. The one failure that stands out in my mind is aluminum. Aluminum has not been afforded the same provisions as steel. Why not?

Let us look at what is happening in the industry. In Canada, aluminum production in 2019 was 2.9 metric tons, and that has diminished from the year prior. It has been going down a bit. What is happening in China with aluminum? In China, aluminum production was 33.8 metric tons and is going up. What has been happening as well is that around the world, the need for aluminum has been going up, but the Liberal government did not feel it was important. Aluminum did not really matter.

One other priority was the environment. What the government failed to recognize is that Canada has the lowest carbon footprint for aluminum production in the world, since we use hydroelectricity, but there is more than that. The Prime Minister was at an announcement in Quebec with Rio Tinto and Elysis. They are looking at a no-carbon-emission process for the production of aluminum. Let us imagine that: We are going to have no-carbon-emission aluminum. I understand that oxygen might even be produced as part of the process.

The government is providing some protection for steel for the car industry, but it is not saying that our aluminum industry matters. Producing environmentally sound aluminum, predominantly in Quebec but also in British Columbia, does matter. The government neglected that, left it out of the agreement, and did not offer the same protections. That is certainly a failure.

There is another area of concern. I have never seen a government give up sovereignty in agreements that it signs with other countries, but now we are going to need permission from the U.S. to enter into an agreement with China. There are also restrictions with respect to our exports to other countries. We are giving away our sovereignty.

These are significant concerns. For the reasons I have identified, we are very reluctant to support this particular agreement as it moves forward.

That said, the United States and Mexico are our largest trading partners. We need to have an agreement. It will take another Conservative government to fix the softwood lumber agreement, to work with the aluminum industry and to make sure that both industries get the same recognition as our steel industry. We are going to have a job to do in trying to fix the agreement, but we cannot go without it in the meantime.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, we do have a very big and complex system in Canada. Today we are focused on what was clearly an issue in the parole system in either the culture or the decision-making.

I know New Democrats also have supply days. It sounds like this is a very important issue, and I would love to have further conversation about how we keep women in this country safe, regardless of who they are or what they do.